I make no secret that I believe @ewarren is running on the wrong message for a referendum campaign on an unpopular incumbent (whom she mostly ignores). I also admit her focus on billionaires isn't "for me."

But here's the question: is it helping her? 1/ https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/13/elizabeth-warren-blasts-billionaires-in-campaign-ad-calling-for-wealth-tax.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

As we see, team Warren used campaigns funds to buy an ad on @CNBC attacking billionaires this week. In mid-November.

If I WERE a supporter, seeing where she is in this race, would I be excited about this move? Is it going to help her win the nomination and persuade voters? 2/

My suspicion is this is a strategic error. She has been running on a populist, anti-corporate, anti-billionaire message from the outset. People who are motivated by that message are either (a) already with her or (b) with Bernie Sanders.

Now for the (a) group I get it. This 3/

is highly motivating & in fact she's selling "Billionaire Tears" mugs on her website now. But (b) hasn't dislodged from Bernie after many months - which included amongst other things, ya know, a literal heart attack.

But even (a) + (b) isn't necessarily a winning coalition. 4/

It COULD be if she wins IA/NH & then gets momentum to win just enough black and moderate voters in SC & on Super Tuesday. Maybe.

Yet data is really clear on this: we know who supports Warren and where she has struggles. In particular, the biggest risk to her campaign is going 5/

into SC and performing poorly with black voters.

So is buying an ad on CNBC slamming billionaires going to help her there? Is it going to reach new audiences and persuade voters who already aren't with her?

Or is she doubling down on a message that already fits her comfort 6/

zone and reinforces her well-established brand?

This is my question about the strategy of Team Warren. Her strategy for the first 9 months of the campaign was very smart: focus on mobilizing a core group of voters who DO fit this brand & message. It built her to a point at 7/

which she had a broader platform to reach out to more voters. Poll after poll show real majorities of Dem voters are willing to consider Warren.

That's what every candidate wants: to get to a point in a crowded field when more voters are willing to listen and hear you out. 8/

And in the weeks since she's reached that point she's: (a) doubled down on single payer healthcare (b) announced she's refusing donations from technology executives and (c) bought ads on CNBC attacking billionaires.

So again, my question: if you WERE rooting for Warren, does 9/

this strategy makes sense? Is it broadening her message and reaching unpersuaded voters?

My suspicion (and I fully admit I do not always give her the benefit of the doubt) is that her inability to break out of the same populist anti-billionaire/corporate reform message is...10/

going to be a real problem moving forward unless she changes soon.

Because PERHAPS she could assemble just enough of a narrow coalition to win the nomination staying with this message, but that leaves a nominee in a precariously weak position to win a general election. /end